This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

A reality check on ‘terror tourism’: analysis

It’s a catchy name for a real problem: what to do about Canadians who join Islamic State or extremists in Mali, Somalia or elsewhere.

An Islamic State member holds the ISIS flag as he dismantles a cross on the top of a Christian church in Mosul, Iraq, under the group's control. Stephen Harper has promised a new law criminalizing travel to areas under the control of terror groups. (The Associated Press file photo)

Not in the sense of what tourism implies: a break from reality, a chance to relax or experience something new before returning to the routine of everyday life.

It’s a catchy name for a real problem concerning what to do about Canadians who join the self-declared Islamic State or fight with a terrorist group in Somalia, Yemen, Mali or elsewhere.

It is often a one-way journey and, if not, there is the fear of what could be imported back to Canada.

On Monday, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper defended his campaign pledge that, if re-elected, he will combat “terror tourism” by banning travel to “designated areas” deemed to be “ground zero” for terrorism — a proposal denounced by Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau as “electoral posturing.”

Article Continued Below

Put another way, Harper’s proposed legislation would mean that to travel to a country where there is terrorism would become a Canadian criminal offence and the onus would be on travellers to prove their innocence rather than on authorities to prove their guilt.

Aside from the weighty questions about the constitutionality of imposing such a ban — given that Section 6 of the Charter ensures Canadians the right to “enter, remain in and leave Canada” — the proposed legislation raises questions about how the law would be enforced and whether it would be effective.

“It is a problematic argument to say an entire region is dripping with terrorism and you can’t step foot in there,” says Amarnath Amarasingam, a post-doctoral fellow at Dalhousie University’s Resilience Research Centre and a leading Canadian researcher on the Islamic State.

Andrew Majoran, an analyst and member of The Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank, said Monday that he supports the idea in theory but wonders about how it would be applied. Harper said those who travel for “legitimate reasons” will not be prosecuted but the vague language of who is exempt leaves “a lot to interpretation,” Majoran said.

But, in terms of its application, terrorism is terrorism, right?

Not exactly.

If so, it would apply to Canadians fighting with groups in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), since some of those groups are aligned with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), one of the 54 organizations on Canada’s terrorist entity list.

Designating the region a no-go zone would also mean Dillon Hillier, a former Canadian soldier, would be forbidden from returning to Iraq, where Hillier, the son of Conservative MPP Randy Hillier, fought earlier this year against ISIS alongside peshmerga forces.

But Stephen Lecce, a spokesman for Harper, later clarified in an email to the Star that the ban is not intended for “mercenary activity” or to prosecute those “who can prove they have been working with groups fighting against ISIS or other enemies of Canada.”

So “mercenaries” are exempt.

So too are journalists and humanitarian workers, Harper said.

But does an exemption mean there would be a condition for journalists or aid workers to obtain permission to travel to “designated areas” or to report one’s activities once returning home? And who would be considered a legitimate journalist or humanitarian worker, given the expanding definitions of such professions?

Then there are the many Canadians with relatives in conflict zones who may want to visit them, as Amarasingam notes.

He added that the proposed ban is “limited to only those areas that are clearly under the control of terrorist organizations … a few, small number of areas in the world.” But again he did not specify which regions.

Somalia?

Al Shabab, the East African affiliated of Al Qaeda, still unofficially governs regions in the south and has a presence in Mogadishu. Harper said the ban would be limited to “the most dangerous places on earth,” which is how Somalia is often described.

A travel ban for Somalia would undoubtedly do more harm than good.

Hundreds of Somalia-born Canadians now fly back and forth — as I’ve often joked, Mogadishu is my favourite place to report on because Somalia’s returning diaspora grew up reading the Star. My bag is always half-packed with Tim Hortons as a gift from their adopted home when I visit.

Somalia’s prime minister and many of its high-ranking security officials are Canadian, as are dozens of educators, humanitarians, business professionals, analysts and others helping rebuild the war-torn country. They grossly outnumber those who travel to join Al Shabab.

But couldsuch a ban be effective in certain cases?

Australia enacted a similar law last year as part of its Foreign Fighters Act amid much controversy. The section that bans travel appears limited to Iraq and Syria and has yet to be applied.

Majoran said he believes the ban would likely do little to deter any fighters from leaving Canada.

“If someone really wanted to travel to a terrorist hotbed like Iraq and Syria, they could easily, and most likely, do it indirectly and illegally,” he said. “It goes in line with the logic that security cameras and theft detectors will stop shoplifters from stealing — but regardless of the prevention tools, they find a way to shoplift.”

What the proposed law would help is the prosecution of those who return home from the so-called designated areas — lowering the burden of proof on the police for terrorism offences.

But since it is already a crime in Canada to travel in support of a terrorist organization, Amarasingam asks if such a ban is needed, given the civil rights implications.

“It’s a bit redundant because if you can prove someone was in Raqqa,” he said, citing a Syrian city under ISIS control, “you can probably prove that he or she was a member of a particular organization as well.”

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com